New law in Georgia proposes to criminalise refusal to recognise constitutional bodies
Georgia’s new “anti-extremism” bill
The ruling Georgian Dream party plans to introduce new legal restrictions that would impose criminal liability on citizens who “publicly refuse to recognise the legitimacy of constitutional bodies” or call on others to do so.
The initiative предусматривает adding a new article to the criminal code that could carry a prison sentence of up to three years, as well as tougher penalties for existing offences committed “on the basis of non-recognition [of constitutional bodies]”.
The government says the changes are part of efforts to combat extremism, while critics see the proposed law as a threat to free speech because of its broad and vague wording.
What the bill proposes
According to amendments submitted to parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, a new Article 316 on “extremism against the constitutional order” would be added to the criminal code. The author of the initiative, MP Archil Gorduladze, said the violations described in the article would include:
- Calls for mass violations of Georgian law;
- Mass disobedience to state authorities;
- Systematic calls to create alternative bodies of power;
- Arbitrarily presenting oneself or another person as a “representative of the government”;
- Other actions aimed at creating the perception that constitutional bodies are illegitimate, harming the country’s interests or creating such a threat.
The maximum penalty would be up to three years in prison. Other possible sanctions include fines or community service. Legal entities could face liquidation and/or fines.
In addition, if any crime is committed “on the basis of non-recognition of constitutional bodies or organisations”, it would be treated as an aggravating circumstance. The minimum sentence in such cases would be no less than one year.
Government’s argument: борьба с “extremism” → fighting “extremism”
Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze of the ruling Georgian Dream party said that forces are operating in the country that do not recognise the government’s jurisdiction over the entire territory, and therefore pose a threat to statehood.
Kobakhidze referred to opposition statements about possible fraud after the 2020 elections and noted that opposition parties later signed an agreement mediated by the EU — the so-called Charles Michel agreement. He said similar accusations were made after the 2024 elections, although the government insists they were not backed by evidence.
The government also points to international assessments. An election observation mission led by the OSCE described the 2024 vote as competitive and fair. For Kobakhidze, this supports the argument that publicly denying the legitimacy of elections in Georgia amounts to political sabotage.
The prime minister also linked the bill to Russia’s policy regarding the occupied territories of Georgia, saying the state must respond to both external and internal challenges through legislation.
Background
Since gaining independence, Georgia has experienced a series of political crises in which the legitimacy of elections and trust in state institutions were called into question. After the 2020 parliamentary elections, part of the opposition boycotted parliament, and an EU-mediated agreement only temporarily eased the crisis.
In 2024, all opposition parties unanimously declared the parliamentary elections to be rigged and refused to take part in parliamentary work. Like Georgia’s fifth president, Salome Zourabichvili, they continue to regard the government as illegitimate.
Experts say the wording of the bill — especially phrases such as “creating the perception of illegitimacy” and “a real threat of harm to national interests” — allows for broad interpretation. This raises a key question: where is the line between violent actions against the state and the expression of political criticism?
Human rights advocates warn that vague definitions could be used against political opponents, activists or the media.
In international practice, anti-extremism laws are usually aimed at direct calls for violence or the violent overthrow of the constitutional order.
In Georgia’s case, the changes are being introduced at a time of deep political polarisation and ongoing disputes over the legitimacy of elections. In that context, how the new article is interpreted and applied in practice will be especially important.
Georgia’s new “anti-extremism” bill
